The Rental Housing Association of Washington (“RHAWA”) and several landlords sued the City of Seattle in September 2020 based on the constitutionality and preemption of several eviction ordinances.  Rental Hous. Ass'n v. City of Seattle, 506 P.3d 669 (Wash. App. 2022).  The Seattle ordinances are as follows:

1. A ban on evictions between December 1st and March 1st (the “Winter Eviction Ban”).

2. A ban on evictions for nonpayment of rent for six months after the end of the Seattle moratorium on evictions (the “Six Month Ban”).

3. An ordinance requiring landlords to accept installment payments for unpaid rent for a certain period of time after the Seattle moratorium (the “Installment Plan Ordinance”).

On summary judgment, the trial court upheld all provisions of the three ordinances, aside from a provision banning the accrual of interest on unpaid rent during the civil emergency and for one year thereafter.  This provision was preempted by state law.  RHAWA and the landlords appealed the trial court’s decision.  The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment order. 

The appeal resulted in a mixed decision.  The Winter Eviction Ban and the Installment Plan Ordinance were upheld.  While RHAWA and the landlords tried to argue that these ordinances conflict with, and are thus pre-empted by state law, the court did not find this argument compelling.  The court reasoned that the Winter Eviction Ban did not prohibit evictions, but merely affected the timing of them and allowed tenants to raise a new defense.  As for the Installment Plan Ordinance, the court concluded that it could be applied in a way to comply with state law.  The Installment Plan Ordinance allows tenants to propose alternative payment plans.  Because state law requires monthly installments not to exceed one-third the monthly rent, tenants have the option of proposing a payment plan consistent with the more restrictive state law requirements. 

RHAWA and the landlords also tried to argue that the ordinances were a violation of the takings clause in the Washington constitution (i.e., they constitute a physical taking of their land without just compensation).  In addition, they asserted that the ordinances violated the privileges and immunities clause because they favor the rights of tenants over the rights of landlords.  Both of these arguments failed as well. 

There were, however, two significant wins for landlords: (1) the Six Month Ban violates landlords’ due process rights by not requiring tenants to prove that they have suffered financial hardship; and (2) the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling that the ban on accrual of interest was preempted by state law. 

While the court’s ruling on the Six Month Ban will be welcome news if you are a Seattle landlord, you may in certain circumstances not be able to proceed with a formal eviction action between December 1st and March 1st.  Seattle tenants will still be able to enjoy the protection of the Winter Eviction Ban if their property qualifies as moderate-income and the property owner has more than four housing units.  Seattle tenants also retain protections relating to the landlord’s obligation to offer a payment plan.  Finally, while the ability to challenge a tenant’s assertion of financial hardship is a positive development for landlords, doing so will likely increase legal costs as lawyers will need to pursue proof of ability to pay.  

If you are a landlord or tenant who has a question about how the court’s decision affects you, please call one of the attorneys at Holmquist & Gardiner, PLLC.

To view the full decision, please see the following link: 824694.pdf (wa.gov)